I have a 4800 that I have been using with photo black. I don't want the headache of Phatte Black and the burden of CS's IP. I have never printed on a Matte paper through the 4800 although i did quite often with the 4000.

Would the best of both worlds be to own one 4800 printing Photo Black and one Printing Matte Black? I am thinking before spending $895 on IP and another couple of hundred on the switch out of the Phatte black tank and trying to source it with the head aches and all. Why not buy a demo or used 4800 for $1,200.00+?

CS has the worst customer service in the world! If their product wasn't so good, what would the point be? I had IP for the 4000 and I was ready to throw the phone through a window the few times I had to deal with them over the phone for tech support. The 4800 ou of the box produces amazing prints. Does anyone have experience using the 4800 with only matte and dedicating a printer to matte and what have the results been as far detail and saturation with the K3 inks? With semigloss and luster papers I am quite happy with the machine.

Also, what is the longevity of Photo Black vs Matte Black? Does it depend on the brand of the paper? What has some of the better life span out there? Would it be good to use some of the paper out there that has been designated for Photo black but has a Matte feel? Should I stick to true Photo paper for Photo Black and Matte paper for Matte Black?

Two machines is a good option if you have the room, the throughput and can get a second machine at a goodprice. With the Canon entry, this is likely.I would see this as a superior solution to the Phatte system.PK will print onto some matte surfaces satisfactorally but usually results in a 0.3 D loss in the blacks.All the black inks are carbon based and last longer than the coloured inks. I would expect archival characteristics of MK and PK to be similar.Of course you could consider the Canon, but the 4800 is a very good and proven machine. Two 4800s would serve you well for the next couple of years while the dust settles, which mst likely it won't.Cheers,Brian,www.pharoseditions.com.au

I have been printing on an Epson 4000 with Moab Entrada Fine Art Matte paper and havebeen extremely satisfied. The surface texture seems to add a 3 dimensionality to my prints (scanned 4”x5” negs of detailed landscapes) that is heavenly. That said I also have some prints that could benefit from deeper blacks than I can achieve with a matte paper. Having recently purchased a K3 Epson 7800 primarily to make larger size prints, I’m in a similar quandary as I want to achieve the deeper blacks which the K3 inks can deliver…but unfortunately not on the matte papers. Prints with the 7800 on matte paper strongly resemble the 4000 on matte paper. At this time I cannot contemplate a second printer so I’m re-evaluating my paper choices. I guess we can’t have our cake and eat it too just yet.

A lot has been written about the supposed superiority of the K3 ultrachrome printers (4800/9800/7800) as opposed to the previous generation (4000/7600/9600). There seems to be general agreement that there is no significant difference when printing onto matte media. This makes sense as the matte black ink is the same between the two generations of printers and none of the other supposed advantages are likely to impact here. What I see with semi-gloss papers (high gloss papers are still not suitable even with K3), is slightly less gloss differential and less bronzing. Both of these issues can be helped with spray such as Lyson Print Guard (there are other similar products). I really do not think there is enough difference to justify swapping from 'K2' to K3 on the basis of print quality; provided you have good profiles, the print quality is almost the same. I know there have been claims of better ink consumption, but I am sceptical about this and the data applies only to matte media. No one I have spoken to in the industry supports the economy claim.Phatte black seems to me to be returning the 4800 to a 'K2' state and when you add on the cost of IP, this just does not make sense, especially if you have got rid of a 4000 to do it. I would be inclined maybe to get a second 4800, particularly as the 4800 does seem to do mono better straight out of the box (however, again profiles are really the key to this).

A lot has been written about the supposed superiority of the K3 ultrachrome printers (4800/9800/7800) as opposed to the previous generation (4000/7600/9600). There seems to be general agreement that there is no significant difference when printing onto matte media.

Depends on who you listen to...

I can get a deeper D-Max (1.7 with K3 vs 1.6 with K2) and the total volume of color is greater with K3 because the ink density is greater. 3 levels of K even on matte/watercolor papers produces a better mid-highlight tonality with the light/light K than the light K of the original UltraChrome inks.

Epson didn't add the 3rd K just to be mean and make you switch K inks...they did it to imporve print quality. For 4000 owners, the K switch is a pain they didn't have but if you are a 7/9600 owner, the new K3 ink printers are FAR better because the ink swap is easier/faster/cheaper and the printers are literally 4x the speed.

If quality is of primary importance in printing, you really can't give up the 3rd K. Which means either a swap or dedicated machine if your quantity of papers types and printing quantity requires it.

Jeff (is that right?),I am being a bit provocative and yes, I can see that the 7800 is a much faster printer. The question remains though whether unless having the prints available directly for comparison from both types of machine, whether anyone is really going to notice the difference, especially outside of the cognoscenti. I get really nice prints out of my printers and you maybe get really really nice prints out of yours. However, if ultimate quality is your goal and you have the money, I would respect anyone who goes down the route of having two 4800s, which is after all what I suggested. What Epson should have done is take the pain out of swapping the inks all together by adding a ninth bay for both black ink options for all of the K3 printers.

Since most of the criticism around the “Phatte” black solution seems to be centered around the quality of the glossy paper what about the following scenario:Print with the Epson K black inkset for glossy and other output requiring the K black ink, then when one wants to print matte paper simply interchange the LLK ink for the PhatteBlack ink, run the 20 letter-sized purge file to clear the LLK ink (for the 7800) and then use ImagePrint’s phatte profiles? This way there is no compromise for glossy and other media requiring the LLK ink and a slight compromise for Matte paper output. I just don’t know how much ink is used when purging the LLK. Does anyone have a handle on this?

A lot has been written about the supposed superiority of the K3 ultrachrome printers (4800/9800/7800) as opposed to the previous generation (4000/7600/9600). There seems to be general agreement that there is no significant difference when printing onto matte media. This makes sense as the matte black ink is the same between the two generations of printers and none of the other supposed advantages are likely to impact here. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67977\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For economy reasons -- and the fact I don't (or didn't) print on art papers nearly as often as coated -- I went with a (relatively cheap) 7600 for my Mk output when I got the 7800 for Pk. To be sure, the Pk output difference between the two printers is significant. However in Mk output the real difference I see in the two machines is shadow detail. Not surprisingly, the new machines are better. But IMO you need to compare the prints side-by-side to see it and it is pretty subtle -- present, but subtle. I'd call it smoother shadow transitions.

Re print speed, I have a different take than above: With Mk, I print primarily on the thicker 308 gm Hanemuhle Photo Rag and 300 gm Epson Ultra Smooth Fine Art. For both of these papers I found it beneficial to add in a 1/2 second dry time delay to avoid some very slight roller marks in the deepest blacks, along with a wider platen gap. This added dry-down time in turn slows down total print speed. My unproven assumption is that I'd need the same thing on my 7800-Mk which would in turn slow down print times to a comparable level on it.

Regardless, if money was not a concern I think the best solution would be two of the new printers -- and if/when I start printing more Mk I will probably bite the bullet and move that direction.

Anyone upgrading to the new Canon and have a used 78/9800 they want to sell me?